Enthusiast compact camera roundup (2013)

Stepping up in the compact spectrum are cameras that tend to be aimed at photographers who want full photographic control. Good low-light performance, the ability to shoot Raw, and accessible manual controls make these compacts a viable portable alternative to more bulky DSLRs.

While these models are small, they pack enough features that should satisfy serious photo enthusiasts. The image quality here won't compete with a good mirrorless camera and a good lens, but most are built around bright lenses that make it easy to get the most out of their smaller sensors. Many of these models also offer long, flexible zooms, making them an excellent choice as a more portable second camera, or as a single do-it-all option. Here are eight models we think you should look at first.

In the following pages, you'll find what we liked and didn't like about each camera, links to our test scenes for image quality comparisons, and real-world galleries to give you a sense of how each performs outside the lab.

I just hope that Fuji re-introduces a new version of the X-S1, but with a 1", instead of 2/3" sensor. It had the best controls, a reasonably good menu, very robust and high quality: it was a pleasure to use, with surprisingly good results, and was built to last.

If we compare with the Canon G1X sony MII says dpreview sony is better at high ISO in jpeg, RAW, and image quality. But if we are going to review on Canon G1X MII, we can compare the two cameras at different ISO and then visualemente is that the better the Canon G1X MII. What then reviews which of the two is right?

I hesitated buying a Sony RX10 or Canon G1X MII. what matters most to me is the sound and image quality. And the G1X MII is behind in both jpeg and raw. Have you seen the Comparometer of dpreview? Is that canon does not win anything about the sony. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony...ot-dsc-rx10/11. The weight is less, though. But then I look at this another widget and confuses me: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/cano...g1-x-mark-ii/9 there is not as clear that the image quality sony. Do you understand? Is not it contradictory a link to the other? Does anyone know who is better at high ISO? eg ISO 1600, ISO 3200 .. Who makes better blurs? In short, regardless of the sensor size and price What is better, the Sony Rx10 or Canon G1X MII?

both links have error (are missing a part "...") to answer your question, the canon will win, when you puch both cameras to extreme conditions. a larger aps sensor will always win it over a small 1" sensor. because the bubkets each hold more photons in the larger photosites, and the lenses are larger too, sensing through much more light.

While offering a unique and excellent feature set in a relatively small body, this is not a camera that most of us would call a compact. By size and price, I think that comparing it to a small MFT would be more realistic. Now the problem is wrapping your head around a camera that is so capable but has a fix lens. But the EVF and LCD are great and the zoom is a magnificent 24-200mm f/2.8, a range that encompasses most photography, and try to buy it as an interchangeable lens ... The body is weather-resistant too ... It looks to me that this camera, while clashing with a generally accepted camera design, offers a tremendous bang for the buck for landscape, travel, family and associated photography. It warrants a trip to B&H and some playtime.

Last night I had a pool party. I used my Panasonic GM1 with f.1.7 Olympus lens. I was taking bright pictures In dim light without flash and also with flash. I took videos, bright and clear and the face recognition was constantly working on multiple faces. Then I thought I would try the Olympus XZ1 withe the f.1.8 lens. I like this little camera but there was no comparison with the GM1, in fact the difference was extremely noticeable. I also have the GX7 and the Olympus E-M5 but with the GM1, I have no need for these bulky cameras. I just love the tiny GM1.Just miss an evf on road trips because of the very bright light in Thailand.

The logarithmic scale of the X axis in a way hides the huge range of some of the cameras going to 200 and 300mm equiv. with most of the other lenses going up to 100mm.At first it looks strange how Canon lens engineers managed to outperform all others by making their lens faster at all equiv. apertures while still having virtually the same range, untill you look closely at the numbers on the X axis and realise their lens is 5x while some others are 8x or more.Also if compact cameras are considered ones with fixed lenses (non interchangeable) then probably the Nikon Collpix A and Sony RX1 should be put there as well as dots (having fixed focal lengths)

Actually, the log scale shows the difference in field of view that you get at each focal length.

100mm is twice as zoomed-in as 50mm (half the field of view)
200mm is twice as zoomed-in again, so it represented by the same distance.
300mm is only 50% more zoomed-in, so the distance on the scale is essentially the same as the difference between 24mm and 35mm, since that's closer to the perceptual difference.

I am not sure that your first sentence quite makes sence, I understand you wanted to show the magnification capability of the lenses on the X axis. The problem is that due to the way logarithmic scales work everything to the left gets exagerrated, and not all of the lenses shown start at the same focal length. e.g. if you had a 10-20 lens we would see a very long line longer than all of the ones shown even if the lens is only 2x.A 10-20 zoom might be of great use to some, but the graph will make it look like having a greater range than the 11x Oly (I think) which is 28-300!

I would suggest that the abscissa ("focal-length axis") on this graph should be neither linear nor logarithmic in focal length, but instead linear in diagonal angle of view, and marked, as it is in the above, in millimeters of 24x36 equivalent focal length.

I initially bought an RX100 to fill the gap between my OMD M1 and my iPhone 5S. But, I ended giving up on it.1. I find it almost impossible to do serious photography in bright daylight without a view finder. 2. The camera was very fiddly to use. 3. The color on the JPEG's is way too cool and I was never able to correct for this in post processing.

I replaced it with a LX7 with the optional EVF. Unlike the Sony, this camera is a joy to use. And, in a back-to-back comparison of the same subjects taken at the same time with both cameras I preferred the LX7 pic the RX100 pic every time.

I recently spent 2 weeks in Paris with the LX7. I didn't think it was worth carrying the M1 for the small amount of time I would have for photos in grey January weather — and I didn't fancy looking like a tourist.

The pics were all excellent — including people and action shots taken at a night time PSG soccer game. Great to have an unobtrusive little camera with a a fast lens.

I still think this camera is in the compact category since it is simply not in a DSLR with a mirror. The abilities and price though is pretty much far from the established category........ because it is just well ahead from its category just like the RX1.

So educate me and give me the Specs that make this a 'compact' camera as opposed to a bridge/super zoom. I clearly don't understand what compact means, or understand the Art of photography, since photography is ALL about knowing the terminology and what the latest gadgets are, and not taking photos. I see DSLR's that are around the same size (K3, Canon XSi) are they considered to be compact in comparison as well? So tell me again how is this compact compared to others in the category? Is it just because of the lens and FL it has?

Again, please outline the 'ART of Photography's' definition of compact.

Disrespectful, misguided comment that disregards the feelings of most of our fellow commentators. I do not not know who the "us who understand this art" are. I have been a successful fine art photographer for decades, have worked with more film and digital gear that I can shake a stick at, have a truckload of awards, write about and teach the art but still agree with dwm2020 100%. Please stay out of this forum if you cannot maintain a civilized discourse.

I, too, have taught photography for over a decade and fail to understand what zxaar is suggesting - what well known consensus exists between experts relating to this topic. And, the tone unfortunately demonstrates a rather ugly territorial tendency present among too many photographers.

So a poster asks a reasonable question (why is RX10 in the "compact" list and not the "bridge" list--which, for the record, is where most review sites have it) and some troll immediately asserts that he is clueless, and ignorant of the "art of photography." So he responds, expressing his displeasure, and then he gets flamed for being "disrespectful" and "misguided"? And someone else asks why get bent out of shape over categories?Seems clear enough: poster takes offense at the dumb wisecrack made by a jerk troll. Poster uses irony to express irritation.Still no answer from smart-ace troll to very simple question.

I am a one camera kind of guy. Need the camera for travel and taking pics of our kids when performing on stage (ballet), which means I need to zoom in on moving people in low light conditions. Our Canon Power Shot sx200Is is not doing the job. Trying to decide between the Olympus Stylus 1 which has the 10x zoom or the Sony rx100II which has the larger sensor (might require cropping). I would appreciate the opinions of sophisticated photographers as to which camera will deliver better pics under intended use. Thanks.

This Sony RX10 should be compared by PRICE to some DSLR cameras!!!! It looks like A LOT of people posting on here agree that this is not a "compact" camera. Don't you think people compare more on body-size and price? I DO! Hope DPReview is listening. Compare this interesting camera with some of the non-compacts and even a DSLR or two!

As noted by others, RX10 is an outlier and does not really belong here. The only thing compact about it is the sensor size. An E-PL5 with a 14-42 or 14-45 is equally compact, more capable and price is lower. The only possible argument for keeping RX10 in this category is that its lens is 24-200 equiv @F2.8 constant aperture and with that in mind, it is compact compared to the alternatives.

It falls into the "compact" class because it uses a smaller sensor than a dSLR (APS-C sensor). My Fuji X-S1 is a rather large camera, but it still falls into the "compact" class with its 2/3" EXR CMOS sensor, which is a little larger than these cameras except for the Sony 1" sensor.

The RX10 is clearly in the wrong category. Except for the fact that it's kit lens can't be removed, it lines up much more closely with the K3, the 70D, and the D7100. It's every bit as expensive and the dimmensions aren't that dissimilar. It's "fixed" kit lens compares very similarly to the 18-135/140 lenses that those cameras have. A little slower at wide, a little faster at tele, very similar range. And the price of all the cameras I mentioned here was within $100 unlike this hodgepodge category it got lumped into.

I'm with mosc on this. The RX10 is much more comparable with a DSLR with big zoom (e.g. D5300 + 18-140mm). You could never refer to the RX10 as a compact camera - size, weight, price and zoom range are much closer to DLSR.

2eyesee - I'm not arguing that an APS-C camera with longish zoom isn't a relevant comparison (which is why we make precisely those comparisons in the RX10 review).

However these roundups are by common category and, while the RX10 doesn't fit well into any category, it makes more sense here than anywhere else. Here it's alongside other cameras with comparatively bright zoom lenses with a moderately-sized sensor, which makes some (if not perfect) sense. Whereas no amount of bulk or cost suddenly makes it a DSLR.

@2eyesee - Likes or not, I do take your point. We're looking to be able to present this information in a number of better ways, so that there would be roundups based on price, or capability, rather than simply class/category.

So, while we need to make do with this for now, in the long run I hope we can satisfy both approaches.

I appreciate the discussion. I think it's a growing problem for the website as the lines blur. We no longer have a 1/2.33" vs APS-C sensor gap to nicely bucket things into. We have plenty of small sensor cameras with interchangeable lenses (Q, 1, NX-M) and lots of big sensors with fixed lenses (RX1, X100, CP-A, etc). Put another way, SLR's are becoming more like bridge cameras and bridge cameras are becoming more like SLR's. The RX10 is equal parts both in my mind.

OVF doesn't an SLR make, look at the m4/3rds with EVF's and the Sony A-mount line (if they ever make another). Sensor sizes are similarly all over the place. The RX10 shouldn't be thought of as less capable than a 1 series nikon ILC for example, the RX10 covers nearly the entire lens SERIES range with the same senor area!

Dimensions and capability make for better groupings than sensor sizes or ILC flexibility.

"While image quality in this class won't compete with a good mirrorless camera paired with a good lens". Actually, the G1X certainly competes. I have an EM1 and good lenses and a G1X and speak from experience. In fact, the G1X image quality is every bit as good as the Canon 60D I recently sold.

Then again, is the G1X series really in the same class as the others? Only on body size. Better to think of the original as a Fuji X100 with a zoom lens and crappy viewfinder...

In the RX10 review, you'll find that camera compared to two APS-C cameras with 18-1XXmm lenses (Canon 1.6x crop and 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 and Sony 1.5 crop with 18-105mm F4). In fact, go to the review today and you'll find we've already added the G1 X II to the chart.

Nobody is suggesting the G1 X II and RX10 don't compete with interchangeable lens cameras (hence those comparisons being explicitly made in the review). However, this chart is taken from a comparison of fixed lens, moderate sensor size cameras, and is quite crowded enough just making those comparison.

I'll admit that I don't know if a G1XII is as good as a G1X and I understand that the statement was a general one applied to a range of small sensor cameras but my point remains valid (and didn't apply to the RX10).

I think Canon made a mistake with the G1X in that they "disguised" it as a G-series camera. Had they taken the concept but given it a unique form (and added an electronic view finder!), it might have had a better reception. As it is, most people don't really understand what it is.

@ Menneisyys:it's difficult for the G1X to compete at 24mm or f/2 ... ;-)

I guess the best one can hope for is that the G1X II is at least as good as the G1X at the same focal length and aperture, said otherwise f/2 24mm, macro mode etc. is 'better than nothing'. My impression is that the G1X Ii lens is very soft wide open and that you need to stop down at least 1-2 stops for decent corners; not really a camera for landscape type photographers but possibly great for low light people/event photography and similar stuff.

I am an enthusiast but unfortunately money is (yes) factor to me... so I got Canon sx150 for 90 euro, film camera Canon 3000v for 20 euro and 50mm lens for 120 euro... and smartphone, samsung galaxy ace, this is s-it, but still better than nothing :)

fail to post the new comment because it contains swear words.... ok ok, I´ve fixed that s-it already :D

Have several of the Sony camera including rx100....Migrated from Minolta to Sony. About 3000 in cameras 3000 in lenses..Guess what the $95 point and shoot does 95 percent of any of the highend camera. The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever

"The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever"

Baloney! Even pros struggled to capture low-noise photos in low light in the days of film. In a head-to-head test of low-light capability, even the best film camera would fail miserably because of the limits of film.

"The present day digital camera has 20 more years to catch up with film......if ever"

Or so it would seem, because it's been this way with other technologies that have moved to digital, like audio.

While there are still good reasons to use film, there are so many advantages to going digital that it's been nearly universally adopted, from the top to the bottom (Pros and amateurs alike).

Perhaps it has more to do with cost and accessibility. Clyde Butcher makes fantastic photos (you really need to see the large prints to appreciate them), but he has to lug around relatively exotic 8x10 or larger cameras - plus he's a skilled print maker. But you only have to plug in a $300 turntable to hear the advantages of analog audio.

The switch to digital for photography, video and audio is driven by profitability and convenience, not the pursuit of improved quality. Just listen to a good record on a good turntable with the same speakers as used with a SACD.

Scaling up film ( 4"X 5" film , equivalent to 200 megapixels , 5 X 7 and 8 X 10 were commonly used in the 1920's ) is simpler and cheaper and the post processing options are comparable. Imagine how the quality of film and film processing/digitising would have been improved with modern scientific knowledge if the R&D had been spent there and not on sensors.

I am also curious about the zoom range, but also how it would crop compared to a pocket camera with a larger zoom range like the Olympus Stylus 1 (which has a 10x zoom but smaller sensor). If I could crop the sony image and end up with the same relative quality, then I could make do without more zoom from it.

multiply the equiv. focal length by the sqrt pixel count and you will get an idea about the reach (lens resolution and image quality should also be considered but let's keep it simple at first, from data in specs).

Hello, this new Sony DSC-RX100 II has everything I believe I want in a point and shoot camera including a larger sensor except for the zoom range. Is there any chance a longer zoom range is coming? Why doesn't anyone offer this camera with greater zoom? Is my expectation unrealistic?

I was about to buy the Nikon P7800, but after I saw the "enthusiastic compact camera 2013 roundup" I got completely in doubt in face of the ten cameras listed (mainly between the Nikon and the Olympus Stylus 1).I use camara most for outdoor pictures, nature and landscapes.What attracts me most:1 - image quality2 - the wide and zoom lenths3 - the versatility in low or bright light (and night photos)4 - the apperture time5 - the quick and friendly controls.

Would someone please help me to make a good choice? britoalmg@gmailcomP.S.: sorry for my english, I am not native speaker.

I'm happy with my Fuji X20 which I bought mid-2013. Bit of a steep learning curve but I'm almost there.I hope that I'll see that it's not so much the camera but the photog's eye that makes a good photo.I'm using Lightroom and Photomax Pro and enjoying the results.

Speaking only of what I know, the Olympus Stylus 1 has a filter thread. If you do want to fit a filter you lose the automatic lens cap, but a normal lens cap on a retainer line is not exactly abominable.

If ever you have to be the sober driver at a lousy, boring New Year's bash, take your tablet... a Happy New Year to all, especially the sober drivers.

The Nikon P7800 has a filter thread, I deleted the lens cap and replaced it with a UV filter and swap to polarising when the occasion arrives.For those other queries: I am happy with the P7800 for the combination of electronic viewfinder PLUS the articulated viewfinder which is a deal-breaker for me. The controls get a bit obtuse at times, I've had a succession of Canons and Panasonics over the years, but I'm getting used to its quaint ways.

Don't limit yourself to this list. Over the years, I've come to know that the newest is NOT always the best, buying a G9 about a year ago and finding it Excellent for the task as a case in point for my self. Also finding a Canon 40D and Nikon D300 for some specific projects recently.

If 'pocket size' is not a requirement you may find even better choices, the Canon GX1 or Panasonic FZ70 as just two options that may engage for your needs.

I've ALWAYs been able to find gently used cameras and lenses very well suited and up to the tasks at 'efficient' prices. E-Bay and Craigslist has served me well, as has a few others . . .DPReview is a good source of info as is many other sites with equipment reviews. . . photo-dot-net is another that I just remembered

Hi, new to this site and hoping for some advice! My Canon G9 hasn't survived its last drop! It was a well used camera which is going to be missed. Now I need to get a new camera and the choice is endless... I'm not up with the terminology but I know what I want from my next camera

Would like:Slightly longer zoom than the G9 ( but not massive)The ability to take portraits (people or wildlife) with a blurred background - I understand this has to do with depth of field but that's about it,A built in ND filter would be good ( would this help against the 'white sky' problem?

Not interested in :WIFIGPSVideoPrinting large size

I've posted in this section as I am interested in this group of enthusiast compact - would any of them offer what I'm after? Also really like the external dials and build quality of the G9 - want to avoid touchscreen interface if poss but willing to compromise.

Don't limit yourself to this list. Over the years, I've come to know that the newest is NOT always the best, buying a G9 about a year ago and finding it Excellent for the task as a case in point for my self. Also finding a Canon 40D and Nikon D300 for some specific projects recently.

If 'pocket size' is not a requirement you may find even better choices, the Canon GX1 or Panasonic FZ70 as just two options that you might engage for your needs.

I've ALWAYs been able to find gently used cameras and lenses very well suited and up to the tasks at 'efficient' prices. E-Bay and Craigslist has served me well, as has a few others . . .DPReview is a good source of info as is many other sites with equipment reviews. . . photo-dot-net is another that I just remembered

I have recently bought a Nikon P7800 after my 2 second hand Canon Pro 1 got dead. It got 28-200mm zoom, f/2-4, built in ND. swivel screen (good for odd angle shooting), Good image quality and capable macro. So I am not missing my Pro 1 any more. However, everyboby crticize it slow write time, but I do not feel it too slow as I use Jpeg entirely.

Loads of people say that the small interchangeable lens cameras mean compacts are losing relevance...I think these offer loads of benefits. Still some of the basics are missing on most of them. I still lean towards the P7800...http://www.thenomadway.com/best-travel-camera.php

I have the Fujifilm X10 (predecessor to the X20), and I absolutely love it! It offers a lot more than my other compacts (I have two), and I enjoy using it more than my DSLR. If they made an equivalent with an APS-C-sized sensor, I'd buy it in a New York minute! Yes, I'm aware of the X100s and the X-Pro1, but there's not an equivalent lens available ... yet.

I myself don't use viewfinder, therefore I would change your question in the following way: " ... on those offered without articulated display?" Since I cannot imagine work without it. Have nice days. :-)

I have been around advanced technology and been a part-time pro photographer for a bunch of years shooting nature, travel, events and basic product. In addition to my pro-level gear, I have been carrying a compact camera almost everywhere I go. I recently replaced my Canon G12 with a Nikon P7800. With a UHS-1 card, I have been shooting landscapes, people and simple studio photography with these conclusions. Composing with an LCD is not OK to me. You cannot see any meaningful details, are distracted by the surroundings, and the shooting stance is very unstable. The EVF of the P7800 is not perfect but is still a great improvement over no viewfinder or the optical versions of the Canon G's. The range of the zoom is unique in this category and the lens is quite bright. Raw + jpeg write speed is about 1.5sec/frame, 0.5 sec/frame slower that dpreview’s favorite camera and not an issue for me. Operations are quick once you learnt them. I truly believe that this camera is getting a bad rap.

could not agree more about the lack of viewfinders and trying to photograph with the rear screen---more like a shot in the dark. Although the Fuji OVF only covers about 82% of the field of view, it is bright and has that all important info. I looked at the Nikon, who are to be congratulated for including an EVF but this has made it very expensive in the UK

Too bad, the more I use mine the more I like it. It really pays to go through the manual and learn settings and operations because once you have done it it's a lot of fun to make the camera jump through hoops. I am getting some remarkable pics in tough light conditions. With the camera's IQ and resolution, I have no trouble making truly good 16x24" pics (on art paper with the Epson 3800). I am not trying to put down the other camera models which are all great (and everyone has the right to decide which one is best for them), just giving Caesar (the P7800) what belongs to him.

The viewfinder vs LCD issue is largely a preference thing. There are pros and cons of composing each way, and it comes down to what you personally prefer and are used to. I shoot both ways and find it's worthwhile occasionally challenging myself to see whether I've been constructing 'reasons' to defend what is essentially a habit.

No it is not. I am all for letting people choose what they like and if at least sometime you prefer composing with the LCD, you are not going to get an argument from me. I do it too in some situations, specifically when I cannot put my eye to the viewfinder (i.e. ground-level closeups, overhead shooting, etc.) Two issues are irrefutable though. Firstly, the view offered by a pentaprim, pentamirror or EV finder is more detailed and, consequently, superior for precise composition than the one offered by a typical 3" LCD (my 7" studio monitor is a whole different bowl of wax, also because subjects stay still). Secondly, shooting with a weight at the end of your extended arms is mush more unstable than pressing the camera to your face. These are scientific facts, not personal preferences.

I recently had to start wearing glasses but I hate them. Since I am long sighted I can see my subjects and look through a EVF/OVF without them - big bonus. The point about composing with the LCD forcing you hold the camera away from your body instead of bracing it is valid for poor light and longer focal lengths when shutter speeds will be slower. The lack of VF on the P7700 made me pass it by but I will have a look at the P7800

Although I do not own one I am surprised that the Fuji X20 does not stand higher in your recommendations.Its IQ is a least a stop better than all the others with the exception of the Sony (and not that far behind that ) and offers a brighter OVF than the Canon and more importantly gives settings info . DPreview like so many other review sites ,appear to attach little importance to viewfinders. Not all your audience is 18yrs old.

There is no excuse for leaving the Canon G1X out of this bunch. Its possibly the best fixed lens still image camera out there and its priced right at the sony rx. It can crush just about every other fixed lens camera due to the massive sensor it has. That camera and the Sony RX are the only ones I really think about leaving the SLR behind for and its not even on the list??? This list would make more sense without the sony rx in there due to its price.

More about gear in this article

Since the RX100 first came out, Sony has introduced a total of four updated models to market and hasn't discontinued any of them. Should you save a few bucks and go with less than the latest-and-greatest? Find out which one is the right fit. Read more

The good people at iFixit publish product-specific disassembly guides, written to help common folk make simple repairs to their own electronic devices. They're also a great way to peek inside a digital camera without voiding your warranty. This week we look inside the Canon PowerShot G16. Read more

DPR reader Philip Ewing found he had little time outside of long hours at the office to spend on photography, so he turned his commute into a time to exercise some creativity. Each day he brings his camera along with him on Washington D.C.'s Metrorail system, where he photographs the Brutalist-style architecture, morning rushes and evening light of the Metro subway. Read more

Regular DPR readers know that the comment section on a camera review can be, shall we say, a bit heated at times. Recently, something a bit different caught our attention in the Fujifilm X30 review's comments. Rodger Kingston, a happy X10 and X20 user demonstrated that the baby X-series offered everything he needed to finish a self-published book of photography. See gallery

Olympus has released v2.0 firmware for its OM-D styled premium compact camera, the Stylus 1, which will enable users to fit a wide angle converter to the lens. The update also introduces useful features like focus peaking, 35mm equiv. step zoom, interval shooting and time lapse modes. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

Canon's EOS R, the company's first full-frame mirrorless camera, impresses us with its image quality and color rendition. But it also comes with quirky ergonomics, uninspiring video features and a number of other shortcomings. Read our full review to see how the EOS R stacks up in today's full-frame mirrorless market.

No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.

Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.

The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.

Latest buying guides

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.